To think that women should not be encouraged to be human incubators

[HengshanRoad]

In regard to the new "adoption tsar" Martin Narey's idea that women who have unwanted pregancies should be encouraged to carry the baby to term and give it up for adoption at birth.

I've given this a lot of thought (having been adopted at 6 months old myself) and I can't help feeling uncomfortable and a little angry at the thought of women being used as incubators for babies. Giving up a child for adoption is an enormous trauma - commensurate with, if not greater than, an abortion. It creates a birth mother who has relinquished a baby as well as a child who has been given up. As an adoptee myself, clearly I'm glad that I was carried to term and not aborted, but if I hadn't been, I would never have known, IYSWIM...

It just seems a little "Handmaid's Tale" to me. A so called "adoption tsar" like Martin Narey should understand adoption and it's many issues more than he seems to.

"I'm finding talk of good outcomes for women after abortion quite sickening."

Yes, because those wicked wenches ought to pay for their sins, right Bubblesincoffee?

Give up a baby, imo, is far more life wrenching than a termination......if it wasn't more people would do it. For a start you have a termination and noone need know that you were ever pg, even the tiny (comparitive) consequence of someone asking you what you had/where is it...would be horrific. I've had two terminations and can't remember the dates, but I'm sure I would half die every birthday.

wot sunshine said

"Yes, because those wicked wenches ought to pay for their sins"

I'm probably going to regret this...but isn't more a case of making sure that the babies and children don't pay?

By babies do you mean fetus'?

Bubbles, thanks for the interesting lecture on adoption. As. Birth parent and adoptee I may even be as well placed as you to pontificate on the outcomes of adoption.

And maybe the third paragraph wasn't aimed at me as well but your bland assurance that there is no reason why adoption ' shouldn't be anything other than positive' spectacularly fails the engage with complexity of the issue. I often find those with the least experience of the issue to be the most opinionated although this may not apply to you.

Only rape victims get a choice though, is that official victims? How exactly can you tell and any system that only has this perspective isn't doing much listening to women's voices.

Strongly pro choice? Yes even though i took a pregnancy to term and gave the child up. Quite a task what with severe pregnancy complications and hours and hours of ss related admin not to mention the attitude of others. Women are capable and in no need of others to make their decisions for them. Their lives first their decisions respected.

bubbles
have you had a baby adopted - I can see the postive side for the adopting family of course - but how postive is it for the birth mother - really?

and have you never ever had sex when it would not a good thing if you got pregnant?
And contraception can fail you know

and not everyone thinks that early in pregnancy it is a life - not in the same way as a term baby is -

"By babies do you mean fetus'?"

No, I did mean babies. The debate seems to have turned away from looking at the way that the process of adoption is handled, and working towards the best possible outcome for vulnerable children, and more about pro-life and the right to abortion.

Sometimes, it isn't the best thing for a child (or its mother) to be raised by its birth mother/family; whether the pregnancy is aborted or the child adopted.

All I'm saying is that once a life is created, women have a responsibility to consider what is best for that life as well as their own.

That does not mean that I think anyone who has an abortion is an evil baby killing slut , it means what it says on the tin. That there is a responsibility that extends beyond ones self.

I was asked about Fathers. I think they should have some rights here, and that they too have a responsibility to the life they create. I'm sure we all agree that Fathers should have to pay for their children at the very least, but if we think that then we shoud also be able to say that they should have a choice about whether their baby's life is worth living. What about in a situation where the Father wants the baby but the Mother wants to abort? I don't believe that she should have the right to end that life because the baby has a strong chance of achieveing good outcomes with a devoted and loving single Father. If that means that she has to be treated as an 'incubator' for 9 months then so be it. She had a chance to avoid that.

I was asked about rape. Obviously rape cannot always be proved, but if a woman is prepared to press charges of rape or domestic abuse, it seems likely that she will have been raped. If a woman would be prepared to lie about something like that, then it's unlikely that any child born to her would have great outcomes. Therefore I would say that's it's probably in the child;s best interest not to be born.

My overriding point is that the baby (or fetus - whatever you want to call it makes no difference, I'm sure most Mothers didn't stop themselves falling in love with their sons or daughters just because technically they were still a fetus) has a right to consideration. Not more than the Mother. I don't even believe it should be equal to the Mother. But it does deserve to be thought of, and a pregnant woman has a responsibility to do that.

This isn't a pro life/pro choice thread, and it's pointless going over those lines because there will always be people with different views, it's about adoption and whether it should be offered as a valid alternative to abortion. I believe it should, because there will be circumstances where the detriment to the woman would be minimal and the positive for the baby would far outweigh that. If there is a strong chance that the outcomes for both Mother and baby are going to be bad, then the best soloution would obviously be to abort. But if there is a chance that the Mother could be supported to give up her baby, live well with it and come to terms with it, while the baby gets to live it's life with a loving family, then why shouldn't that be thought of as a good thing?

bubbles
have you had a baby adopted - I can see the postive side for the adopting family of course - but how postive is it for the birth mother - really?

But that's my whole point. The birth mother is not the only person to consider here. Even if she does have to go through pregnancy. There is a child and a Father that should have rights too.

Women are capable and in no need of others to make their decisions for them. Their lives first their decisions respected.

Other poster that share yoru viewpoint are calling them vulnerable - which is it? I believe they are capable, but also selfish if their descisions are based soley on what is best for them, and not the baby or it's Father.

"But that's my whole point. The birth mother is not the only person to consider here. Even if she does have to go through pregnancy. There is a child and a Father that should have rights too."

That's the nub of it, isn't it. I do believe a foetus has rights; I just don't think they compete with the rights of a fully sensate human being when the demands they will make are so huge and the dependance so great. My feeling is that only a pregnant individual has rights because it's their body at stake. And you can't remove a foetus and grow it in a pod somewhere, so IMO the woman does have the sole right to decide.

I don't think the father has any rights where a foetus is concerned, because he isn't the one who is pregnant. It's why I am pretty angry when men try to bully for abortions - the foetus' rights do trump his then, because he isn't the person who is pregnant. The only contribution he can be forced to make against his wishes is financial, and that's not a sufficiently strong reason by a long shot. He's not pregnant, and won't have to parent.

Nobody, IMO, should have a say except the owner of the uterus in question.

The problem is ss wait to long and have to much hope that some families can turn things around.

Then oh when the child is say 10 they try to get it adopted when you have no chance and the child is so badly damaged from living on and off with chaotic parents.

Sorry but I really do feel we to much for the parents in the uk and not enough for the child chaotic families should have I year to get sorted if not then children should be removed and placed for adoption I personally have a case at the moment 6 years on their still trying to get the mum to get it together now the child is six they have hardly any chance of being adopted its very clear and was from the start from the circumstances that the mum would never be able to parent and that child could have been adopted from day one (mum had already had 6 children removed over the years)

A life is so much more than it's humble uterine dependant beginnings though. That's the problem.

Babies are viable after 24 weeks. What's 24 weeks, or even 9 months out of the life of a woman who chose to take a chance?

As i said in my earlier post it was M Narey who said that some families cannot be fixed and SS should consider adoption earlier, he directly dealt with those caes first hand, the next step is how to obtain the balance of birth parents rights and the childs right to be brought up with birth family and weighing up the risk of emotional and psychological damage to the child.

To many children are left two long with abusive parents.

My fear is the setting of targets, there is clear evidence of SS taking DC's from parents with LD's and this would have an impact on mothers with LD's.

bubbles- the only thing most women seeking abortion have taken a chance on is contraception and have been let down by that.

bubbles- i would somewhat agree if there wasn't the stigma of giving up a child but most women would find themselves shunned. Also women still die in childbirth.

"Babies are viable after 24 weeks. What's 24 weeks, or even 9 months out of the life of a woman who chose to take a chance?"

As someone who had hyperemesis followed by such severe SPD I ended up in a wheelchair and then a 3 day latent stage labour and who now has an anterior and posterior rectocele... erm, are you serious? And it could never be 24 weeks - you don't seriously imagine they would say, okay, we'll just induce labour now you're at 24 weeks and plan an adoption? You know that's nonsense and you're talking 40 weeks.

And I wouldn't be able to give a child up for adoption, either. I just wouldn't. I admire a woman who does make that choice, but I couldn't. For me, if I were pregnant right now, I would have to terminate because it would place pressures on my family we could not manage. I wouldn't feel guilty about that, because the family I already have mean more to me than a potential life in the form of rapidly dividing cells. I don't see a first trimester fetus as morally equivalent to a person, no. Last trimester, and I get more equivocal, definitely, but that's not really an issue as so does the law unless disability equals incompatibility with life or some other terrible scenario. Nobody aborts a 23 week pregnancy casually.

Babies are rarely viable after 24 weeks, incidentally. I believe the stats show that just 1 in 100 become healthy children without major disability, and an overwhelming majority die in the NICU. It's the very boundary of viability. That's a reasonable place to draw the line, but a bizarre one to suggest as an appropriate length of pregnancy.

"stigma of giving up a child"

Isn't this partly what Narey is suggesting, though. If the stigma could be removed, then the choices and options available to a woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy would be opened up.

This wouldn't help address the situations where children are removed from chaotic or dangerous families, though, as I'm not too sure a lot of thought goes in to creating these.

Birdsgottfly totally agree with you, its like the courts haven't got anything better to do the instruct ss to flog dead horses.
I know sw I work with get so frustrated they go to meetings the parents turn up drunk or on drugs fail to attend contact and and unable to care for themselves let alone a child but because the court has ordered it they have to partake in the sham.

Also i think its very cruel towards the parents setting them up for failure, giving them a challenge you know they can't meet instead of having the adoption conversation when the child is born they wait let the parents fail the child every day in every way then when their damaged and the parents had enough of a task they could never achieve they try for adoption when nobody sadly wants to adopt a 15 year old

It goes beyond the cort system at present as it is written in the Children Act that the LA should seek to do all in its powers to facilitate a child being broought up in its birth family.

For achange in policy to happen we would have to be gauranteed the funding as these sorts of things so good but the correct procedure and funding isn't put in place from the off, the promises are never kept.

I doubt that M Narey is naive about that as Barnado's have had to cut many projects because of a lack of funding.

Maypole1 and Birdsgottafly I totally agree with you. There is a world of difference between supporting mothers and families who may need help and guidance and those who repeatedly have little or no interest in doing what is best for their children.

For me, the rights of the children in these cases far outweigh those of the birth families. If this ?social engineering? [as someone called it earlier] can greatly improve the lives of abused and neglected children, why is that such a bad thing?

And as a result sadly us carers sit with children for years while the courts hope the parents become "good enough"

Dear lord birds some time this is all so depressing

It would prevent creating more victims as most of those children do not make good parents themselves, through not knowing how to parent as well as being mentally unwell through their treatmen,t, also there are the children that commit crimes and especially sexual crimes which is learnt behaviour rather than a fault within themselves.